Revolutionary Measures

Has Twitter spawned Jeremy Corbyn?

Amidst all the column inches written about the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, there are a couple of factors that people seem to be forgetting. True, he is probably now the most famous Jeremy in the country (according to an unscientific Google search I just carried out, links to stories about him outrank Clarkson and Kyle), but he is actually part of a wider protest movement across the Western world. Far left Greek party Syriza has just been re-elected, despite backtracking on its promises to free Greece from onerous bail-out terms. Spanish left wingers Podemos have also shown well in opinion polls while Catalan nationalists won a majority, albeit a slim one, in this week’s regional elections. Going back to the UK, look at the success of the Scottish Nationalists at the election and the continued high profile of Nigel Farage.

Jeremy Corbyn

Across the pond, non-politicians such as Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina have been leading polls amongst Republicans, while Bernie Sanders, who describes himself as “the only elected socialist in Congress”, is keeping Hillary Clinton honest in the Democratic contest.

So why are voters across Europe and the United States supporting mavericks on the right and left, even if in many cases there is little chance that they will be able to carry out their policies?

No dead pig bounce
The easy answer is that they are sick of career politicians who seem keener on hanging onto power than actually connecting with voters. Many people think politics itself is broken. Even David Cameron’s alleged assignation with a dead pig just makes us shrug and doesn’t really impact his ratings either way. At the same time many people still don’t see the good times coming back after the recession – real wages in the UK are still below those of before the crash for many people, hurting confidence. Globalisation and the rise of ever-more intelligent computers is eating into traditional middle class occupations, causing uncertainty for those with skills that can be potentially automated or offshored.

Obviously, any alternative to this combination of depression and drabness has a chance to stand out from the crowd. And challenger politicians can get away with half-baked policies or even, as in the case of Donald Trump, a promise that he’ll come up with some “really good ideas” when he is elected.

But I think there is a more fundamental force at work – the internet and social media has completely changed how we consume our news and form our opinions. We live in Andy Warhol’s era of everyone being famous for 15 minutes, from a man captured on camera abusing a motorcyclist to celebrities reciting music lyrics with a Shakespearean twist.

What the likes of Corbyn and Trump share, despite their radically different views, share is a combination of solidity, outsider status and an ability to come up with inspiring (or eyecatching) soundbites that suit social media. They don’t appear stage managed but at the same time are reassuring while not being part of the establishment.

Politics 2.0
In many ways they are the start-ups of the political world, promising radical change to shake up a traditional market, in the same way that the likes of Google, Amazon and Uber have changed the industries they operate in. Perhaps voters believe that politics can be re-invented, just like retail and telecoms.

What will be interesting to see is how traditional politicians respond – will they continue to operate as before, like many of the companies that digital start-ups displaced, or can they re-invent themselves successfully and build a brand that fits with the internet electorate? Or will we see a new generation of less radical, but more social media savvy, politicians come through to replace the likes of Corbyn and Trump? One thing is for certain, in politics as in every other sector, those that cope best with today’s social, mobile world will be those that engage with voters and ultimately win their loyalty and power.

September 30, 2015 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Will Facebook take over the world?


Facebook logo Español: Logotipo de Facebook Fr...

Last week Facebook announced that on Monday 24th August 1 billion people logged into the social network. That’s 15% (almost one in seven) of the world’s population using Facebook in a 24 hour period. And given that over half of the globe still isn’t online, the percentage of actual versus potential users is actually much higher – closer to 33% of the 3.195 billion internet users.

The announcement begs three big questions:

1.Is it a good thing?
It is difficult to find a parallel in history for a single entity being used by so many people across the world. There have been monopolies in the past of course, particularly in telecoms before deregulation, but these operated at a country level, and you didn’t have a choice. You wanted to make a phone call and you had to use BT or AT&T. When it comes to control over how people communicate the only example that comes to mind is organised religion, such as the pre-Reformation Catholic Church where all of Europe was subservient to the Pope. As yet, Mark Zuckerberg hasn’t branded any Twitter users as heretics, for which we should obviously be grateful.

Critics will argue that having one company central to how we communicate with friends and family, find our news and even shop is a bad thing. On the other hand, Facebook fans will point out that you have a choice – other social networks are available and the past is littered with previously successful companies (such as MySpace) that failed to evolve. This does ignore the impact of the network effect – as more and more people are on Facebook, it becomes increasingly necessary to be on there if you don’t want to miss out. Technically it is very easy for anyone to create a new social network, what is difficult is enticing enough people to join to make it necessary for their friends to also jump aboard.

What is definitely true is that Facebook, like other international online giants, does need to scrutiny that matches its power and reach. I’m not talking about regulation per se, but any organisation that has Facebook’s combination of personal demographic data and ability to analyse it on a grand scale has to meet the highest standards of behaviour.

2.What about the other 85%?
The obvious point that many people have made is that if 1 billion people were on Facebook on a single day, the remainder of the world (85% in fact), were doing something different. As we’ve seen, Facebook has captured a large percentage of the online population, which is why the company’s efforts are being put into increasing the number of people with access to the internet in some form. Its main vehicle for getting people online is, which provides free basic internet services in areas where it is either non-existent or unaffordable. Some of the ways is looking to extend coverage include high altitude planes beaming a signal to a particular area, lasers and satellite technologies. However has attracted criticism for only providing access to a walled garden of services, including (surprise surprise) Facebook itself.

Clearly if Facebook is to grow it is easier to expand the pie of internet users and reach the currently unconnected, rather than target the refuseniks in countries where it already enjoys high penetration rates. Expect more efforts to extend internet access – probably not just within developing countries but also within ‘notspots’ inside existing markets, thereby encouraging people to use the service even more.

3.Where next for Facebook?
Facebook has already overcome two major hurdles that have defeated its rivals. It has successfully transitioned to a mobile-first world (87% of access is from mobile devices), and is generating growing profits. As well as extending its reach to new victims (sorry, consumers), it also needs to increase engagement – i.e. ensure people still log on and use the service, and do it more often and for longer. The big bet that Zuckerberg has made here is on virtual reality, with the $2 billion purchase of Oculus VR expected to spawn headsets that deepen the experience of using Facebook and interacting with your friends. This, for me, is where things start to get more than a little creepy – if people are addicted to Facebook now, just imagine the time they’ll spend online if they can essentially experience reality without leaving their screen. Plus, with the current size and design of headsets, everyone will look like they are part of Daft Punk.

So, to answer my three questions, I’d say we should be wary about Facebook’s might, keep an eye on its efforts to reach the other 85% to ensure there is a level playing field when it comes to access, and be sceptical about the advantages virtual reality can actually bring us. After all, you could just pick up the phone and talk or, heaven forbid, chat to someone down the pub……

September 2, 2015 Posted by | Creative, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Death of a (car) salesman

Like anything, buying a new car has positive and negative parts to the journey. The excitement of choosing and test driving a shiny new vehicle has to be balanced with haggling with a salesman in a dealership and painfully avoiding the add-ons and extra warranties that they want to burden you with (and co-incidentally give them a bigger commission than on the car itself).

Automobile dealership - service and repair are...

Yet, the internet was meant to remove middlemen and enable us to deal direct with the producer. It has worked in industries such as travel, where package holiday companies have had to reinvent themselves in an era of cheap flights, AirBnB and TripAdvisor. But for bigger ticket purchases we still rely on car dealers and estate agents rather than dealing directly with manufacturers or those selling their house.

The end of middlemen?
So why are these middlemen still here and will they survive for much longer? After all, most buyers now read car reviews online, check manufacturer videos on YouTube, get information on options from websites, and can arrange finance quickly at the click of a mouse. No wonder that the average number of dealers that buyers visit when purchasing a new car has dropped from 5 to 1.6 in the US over the last ten years. As in a lot of fields, more and more research is carried out online without needing to interact with anyone, let alone a sweaty dealer in an ill-fitting suit.

Illustrating this trend, upstart electric car company Tesla is looking to go direct to customers in the US, cutting out dealers altogether. Other manufacturers are trying more limited experiments with special editions sold online only or dealerships remodelled to be more like the Apple Store, with advisors providing information and help, but no hard sell.

The pace of technology change within the car also threatens to make the dealer obsolete. Modern cars are computers on wheels, streaming data back to the manufacturer and able to refresh their operating system remotely without human (or mechanic) intervention. Tesla regularly updates the software on its car over the air– with an upgrade in January 2015 improving the performance of its Model S, meaning it can match the acceleration of a McLaren MP4-12C.

However as a recent piece in The Economist points out, changing the system will be difficult. Dealers are a powerful lobby, and while they don’t make much money on each new car they sell, the ancillary products and ongoing servicing relationship can be extremely lucrative. It also provides buyers with the opportunity to get a better deal by haggling between rival garages – if you have the inclination to do so.

I think that there are more basic reasons for any middleman, whether a car dealer or travel agent, to survive – adding value, trust and ease. These are important concepts for any company in the digital age to embrace and it is worth looking at your business with these in mind.

1. Adding value
With the vast majority of information now a Google search away on the internet, and prices displayed for everyone to see, do you really add value or are you a hindrance to the process? Again, the Apple Store is a good example to follow. You can buy your iPad from one of a hundred shops or websites, but the help you receive and the ability to get your questions answered in a positive, unpatronising way naturally leads people to the Apple Store.

2. Trust
Do consumers trust you? Or more to the point, do they trust you more than the manufacturer you represent? One of the factors I think will hold back the demise of dealerships is that consumers trust car makers less. You only have to look at botched recalls and unreported faults to see why. Car makers are also much more distant than your local dealership, making it difficult to build a relationship of trust. That’s not to say dealers are safe – they regularly top polls of least trustworthy occupations, but in the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

3. Ease
People have to do more and more with less and less time. In many ways the internet has made us more time-poor. Whereas before a holiday could be booked by marching into the travel agency and asking what they had available, it now takes hours of internet research, comparing the relative locations of villas on Google Maps and poring over TripAdvisor reviews. Those middlemen that still have a place recognise that they need to make things easy, providing a helpful service that cuts down the time you need to spend and removes roadblocks from the customer journey, without charging the earth.

Looking at your own business, do you meet these three criteria? If not, it is time to change, before pressure from consumers and manufacturers squeezes you out of the market.

August 26, 2015 Posted by | Marketing, Social Media, Startup | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Football crazy? Can clubs control the media?

The new football season is already nearly a month old, and while action on the pitch is taking centre stage, how fans get information about their team is also becoming a hot topic for debate. Several clubs, such as Swindon and Newcastle, have banned certain newspapers from attending their press conferences or talking to their managers and players. The reason? They prefer to communicate direct with fans through club websites, newsfeeds, social media, apps or even in-house TV channels. Scottish club Rangers has even banned particular journalists due to not liking the articles they’ve written about the club’s governance or finances.

Polish Football Fans 001

In a way this approach simply fits with the ability of the internet to remove middlemen (in this case the media) and to connect brands directly with their audiences. However it also sets a dangerous precedent – with coverage reduced to happy soundbites stage managed by the club’s PR team. The decline of newspaper and magazine staff numbers has tipped the balance in favour of big brands, with many journalists now using their skills to publicise companies and PR agencies. Football teams are not the only brands aiming to do this, using the distribution mechanisms of the internet and social media to get their message out unfettered by the critical filter of the press.

As a PR person I can see the initial attraction in this – after all, what marketing manager doesn’t want guaranteed 100% positive coverage? But it isn’t sustainable. One of the reasons for the rise of PR was that an independent article in a newspaper or an interview on the radio was more believable, and therefore worth more than an advert. While the internet has blurred the lines, I’m convinced people still react best to coverage that delves deeper than a press officer’s prepared statement. Football is the perfect case in point – fans may love their club, but be intensely suspicious of the owners, board, manager or particular players. Take the frequent demonstrations at matches and the vitriol directed at players on social media. Therefore simply providing bland statements of how the new centre forward is looking forward to the season ahead and how wonderful the training facilities are, is not going to keep true fans interested or happy. At the same time social media, while providing a channel for brands, also actively undermines them by making it easy and fast to share unofficial information. This could come from anywhere – a disaffected (or unthinking) player, a taxi driver that overheard a conversation or a barman that saw that same new centre forward slumped over his pint the night before his debut.

What brands (of all sizes) need to realise is that you need three different types of content (paid, earned and owned) to build your profile. There is paid media, essentially advertising and sponsorship, where it is normally clear that money has changed hands. Earned content is when a third party (which could be a publication or simply a fan on social media) shares or publicises your messages. Finally, owned media are the channels you control – from in-house TV channels to websites and Twitter feeds.

Successful brands combine all three of these in a cohesive way that builds engagement. Fans will want to the chance to interact directly with you and get information straight from the horse’s mouth, but at the same time they want independent verification through trusted third parties such as the press and the backing of their peers through social networks. And these same social networks provide the platform for independent fans and commentators to create and share their own content, outside the club’s control. Therefore the football clubs that have succumbed to the beguiling fantasy of controlling the news should take a step back and look at organisations and countries such as Soviet Russia that have relied on propaganda. Citizens stop believing in the news they read and before too long even the most rigid states begin to show cracks and eventually collapse.

August 19, 2015 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Can social media help politicians engage?

Politicians have an image problem. In the main they are seen as aloof, out of touch and not particularly interested in their constituents except around election time. This lack of connection goes a long way to explaining the appeal of non-traditional parties such as UKIP, the Greens and even the Scottish Nationalists at the last election. Voters are bored with hearing the same platitudes mouthed by interchangeable MPs who think less about the long term, and more about their career. Of course, there are plenty of honourable exceptions, and, even in the case of Lord Sewel those that try and liven up the image of politicians by snorting cocaine from the breasts of prostitutes.

twitter fail image

However, a better long term strategy for building the right sort of relationships is staring politicians in the face – social media. By providing the chance to listen, engage and be themselves, it should enable them to build stronger ties to their constituents and consequently change attitudes. You only need to look at how Barack Obama mobilised voters in two presidential elections to see how powerful social media can be.

Unfortunately, many MPs are still either not using Twitter, or if they are, simply RT the party line or delegate it to their interns. It is time for this to change, and any MPs worried about doing an Ed Balls should read this excellent guide for MPs to using Twitter. Written by Stuart Bruce for the Chartered Institute of Public Relations it was submitted to the Speaker’s Commission for Digital Democracy.

But it isn’t just MPs that should take a look. Reading through it I was struck by how relevant the best practice it contains is to anyone in business who is tweeting or thinking about taking the plunge.

Some of the key points I’d highlight are:

  1. Twitter isn’t just for the young. The fastest growing group of users is those between 55 and 64. So, whatever your customer demographic you should investigate joining the network
  2. Use it to talk, not to broadcast. Twitter works best if you spend time listening and joining/starting conversations, rather than simply pumping out your point of view
  3. There is no such thing as ‘in a personal capacity’. We’ve all seen the caveats that tweets are personal and don’t show any endorsement or company backing. But in reality politicians will be judged by what is tweeted in their name, and if you provide your company name then it will be too. So if you want to be wild and outrageous (but legal), get yourself a second Twitter account (or save it for Facebook).
  4. Be human. This goes back to talking, not shouting. Use humour and vary what you say, but do remember that spoken irony doesn’t necessarily translate on screen.
  5. The 60 second rule. If you just learn one thing from the guide it’s this. If you think your tweet is potentially contentious wait a minute, go back to it and take another look before you press send. And don’t tweet while drunk.
  6. Your account is never hacked. The standard political argument for when a dubious tweet appears is that someone has taken the time to break into your account and tweet in your name. No-one believes this anymore – so obey the 60 second rule and you shouldn’t have a problem
  7. Use Twitter to find information – look for specific hashtags, follow relevant people and news sources and it will ensure you are better informed. You can also use it to build relationships with new business prospects, but do bear in mind there’s a fine line between proactive sales outreach and stalking.
  8. For politicians and their wives, I’d add an eighth point – never conduct your marital break-up over social media, but I can’t imagine many people think this is a good idea at the best of times….

So for anyone in business who isn’t on Twitter, or even those that are, but aren’t using it to its full potential take a look at the guide and see what you can apply to your own tweeting – it may not get you elected, but it will help you engage with the right audiences and build stronger relationships.

July 29, 2015 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | Leave a comment

War moves online

Most people know that the funding for the prototype of the internet (Arpanet) came from an agency within the US Department of Defense, and that one of the reasons for the decentralised nature of the network was to make it more robust in case of physical attack during wartime.

Therefore it is ironic that the underlying internet infrastructure is used as a platform for new kinds of attack, from cyber warfare by individual states and as a way of disseminating propaganda by terrorist organisations such as IS.

Of course, governments and terrorists have always aimed to use communication channels to get their messages across. Hence censorship in times of war, and even reporting restrictions during peacetime – I remember the ban on members of Sinn Fein (and other Irish republican and loyalist groups) from speaking on TV in the 1980s and 1990s.


Photo David Shankbone via Flickr

The internet, and more particularly social media, has opened up completely new ways of reaching audiences, and groups such as IS have been particularly strong at using these sort of channels. One study claimed that IS and its sympathisers controlled 90,000 Twitter accounts for example. Governments have tried to fight back, but the combination of the size and global spread of the internet and the difficulty of pinpointing specific individuals has made their job more difficult. The latest measures, recently announced by David Cameron, include ensuring that ISPs do more to remove extremist material and identify those that post it. However in a fast-moving world, the concern is that it is impossible for governments to move fast enough – as well as worries about the impact on free speech.

Some people are therefore taking action independently. Hacktivist group Anonymous is targeting alleged IS supporters online, recently publishing a list of over 750 Twitter accounts that it claims are spreading IS propaganda. It is also trying to take down Facebook pages, blogs and websites used by supposed supporters of the group. To try and influence search engine results it is flooding some Twitter accounts with images of Japanese anime character ISIS-Chan, making it more difficult for those looking for information from IS to find it.

I must admit that the attacks by Anonymous leave me in two minds. On one hand, anything that reduces the online footprint of a group that advocates cold-blooded killing of those that it disagrees with, can only be a good thing. But at the same time Anonymous is setting itself up as judge and jury – there is no right of appeal if someone innocent is targeted in error. It feels very much like the justice of the Wild West, perhaps because that is what many parts of the internet have become. For example, other groups linked to Anonymous recently took down the website of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, after one of its officers shot and killed a protester, an action that could have hampered the ability of the public to find out information or potentially report incidents.

I’m sure Anonymous is confident in the information it is working with, and when it comes to IS its mission is laudable in many ways, and seems to be getting some results. But surely it is something that a combination of social networks and the authorities should be leading on? The real issue is that the majority of those with the technical skills to hack perceived wrongdoers don’t want to play by the rules – they’d much rather operate outside the law, rather than as part of it. The challenge for governments is therefore not only to persuade the online population of the dangers of IS, but to enlist the help of hackers to work with them more officially if they want to use their skills for good. That won’t be easy, but is vital if there is going to be a united front when it comes to the online War on Terror.

July 22, 2015 Posted by | Marketing, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The battle for banking – Amazon enters the fray

In a previous post I talked about how the big four internet companies Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon (GAFA) had quickly developed their businesses. They’ve all moved beyond the sector they started in, extending what they offer to compete with each other in areas such as ecommerce, social networks, mobile devices and mapping.amazon_logo_wb_2328

How have they done this? They’ve used the four strengths that they each possess:

1. Agility
With the exception of Apple, GAFA was born on the internet meaning they aren’t burdened with long-established corporate structures compared to their traditional rivals. So they can make decisions quickly, unhindered by the warring departments and turf wars that characterise first and second generation technology companies.

2. Data
Rather than purely physical assets, GAFA’s USP is data and what it does with it. From selling our search histories to monetising our personal pages, the four companies have built up extremely detailed pictures of their users and their lives. This allows them to accurately predict future behaviour – how many times have you bought something suggested by Amazon even though you had no idea it existed until the recommendation popped into your inbox? The advent of even cheaper machine learning and potentially limitless cloud-based resources to crunch data means that this is understanding is only going to get more precise.

3. Focus on the customer experience
Even though the majority of interactions don’t offer the personal touch of a bricks and mortar shop, these companies have gone out of their way to create a simple to use customer experience. Compare the Apple iPhone to previous ‘smartphones’ – the only difficulty for users was unlearning the convoluted way you had to access information on Microsoft or Nokia devices. I know, I had one of the first Windows phones – the user experience was terrible. Innovations such as one click ordering, reviews and simple sharing all mark out internet companies from their rival.

4. Scale
The final differentiator is scale – and the speed at which it is possible to grow on the internet. Rather than taking 20 years to become dominant in an existing market, companies can create a sector of their own and expand globally within months. Part of this is down to the network effect, but scale has also been achieved by moving into adjacent markets and just adding them onto the offering for existing users. This lowers the cost of entry for the company with the user base and creates a barrier to entry to rivals.

Taking these four factors into account, banks should be worried about Amazon’s latest move as it builds on all four of these strengths. Amazon Lending will make loans to small businesses in the UK that sell through the company’s Marketplace platform, after the service was successfully launched in the US. The beauty of the scheme is that Amazon knows exactly how the small business is performing as it can track their sales, and then use this data to offer selected companies short term working capital to improve their business. As it handles all the billing and cash collection for Marketplace sellers it can even take repayments directly from their profits, before they it pays them, minimising risk.

Adding to this data advantage, it is also offering the same simple to use customer experience that sellers are already familiar with. Compared to faceless or unhelpful banks, this is just the sort of thing that expanding small businesses are looking for.

The ironic thing is that, on the face of it, there is nothing to stop banks offering something similar. Their merchant services arms handle online and offline debit and credit card transactions, so they have access to data that could be used to work out creditworthiness. They have a network of branches to provide loans through, as well as a significant online presence. But all of these are separate departments and banks don’t have the agility to bridge the silos and provide the one stop shop that businesses are looking for.

In the same way that Apple Pay is disrupting payment services, Amazon Lending will take another bite out of the traditional business of big banks. And, as more and more of such services launch that nibble away at banking profits, then they face being outmanoeuvred by nimbler, more customer-focused and cleverer competitors. It is therefore time for retail and business banks to get joined-up or face becoming low margin commodity businesses in the future.

July 1, 2015 Posted by | Marketing, Social Media, Startup | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Apple: Do no evil?

English: Apple. Polski: Jabłko.

The technology world, outside China, is increasingly dominated by four companies – Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon. They’ve even spawned their own, rather ugly collective acronym – GAFA. What’s interesting is that while all four have started from different places in the technology ecosystem they are now competing with each other in areas as diverse as smartphones and mobile devices (Android vs iPhone/iPad vs Kindle/Fire), mapping, and retail (especially music).

But the biggest – and most lucrative – battleground is digital advertising. Both Google and Facebook are using the huge amount of information they know about their users, whether through searches or their social media profiles, to target adverts so that they are more personalised and therefore more effective. In a less creepy way, Amazon analyses what you’ve already bought and suggests potential new purchases.

This reliance on consumer data, has led to issues, with users complaining about their privacy being invaded for example. Others have pointed out that with ‘free’ services like Facebook, the consumer becomes the product, with their data effectively paying for the access they receive.

Up until now GAFA have been pretty united in their use of consumer data and attitudes to privacy. This has now changed spectacularly with Apple CEO, Tim Cook, launching a blistering attack on his rivals, stating that “I’m speaking to you from Silicon Valley where some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information.”

If that wasn’t direct enough an attack on Google and Facebook, he added, “We believe the customer should be in control of their own information. You might like these so-called free services, but we don’t think they’re worth having your email, your search history and now even your family photos data mined and sold off for God knows what advertising purpose.”

Before we hail Cook as a white knight of the IT industry, it is worth bearing in mind four facts:

  1. Apple has complex privacy policies just like the rest of GAFA
  2. Advertising is key to a large number of the apps within the AppStore
  3. Currently the default search engine in Apple devices is Google, so the company indirectly benefits from “selling off your search history”
  4. He was speaking to EPIC’s Champions of Freedom event, where he was honoured for corporate leadership – so he was hardly likely to speak positively about data-driven rivals.

Putting cynicism aside, there are two other reasons for Apple to embrace privacy and break from other members of the GAFA pack. Firstly, it made a profit of $13.6 billion in its most recent quarter, so it doesn’t really need to upset its more upmarket customers by selling their data for a (relative) pittance.

Secondly, and more importantly, Apple is now moving into new areas where security and privacy are everything – payments (with Apple Pay) and health (with a new ecosystem focused on wearables and sensors). Both of these are based on the most personal of personal data, where a single misstep would destroy consumer trust and essentially stop expansion in its tracks. It might even harm the overall Apple brand.

So Cook (and the rest of Apple’s strategists) have made a choice. They believe that people are happy to pay more for premium iOS products, on the understanding that their personal data will not be abused. It is in stark contrast to Google’s focus on mass market, cheap or free products where consumers pay by giving up control of their information. As the battle within GAFA rages, it will be interesting to see which side comes out on top in both the PR and sales wars.

June 17, 2015 Posted by | Marketing, PR, Social Media, Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Ten lessons from ten years of YouTube

Español: Logo Vectorial de YouTube

This year YouTube celebrates its tenth anniversary. Originally founded in 2005 it has grown to have over 1 billion users, with 300 hours of video currently uploaded every minute of every day. For those without a calculator that’s 432,000 hours of new content every day.

Available in 70 countries and languages it made its founders $1.65 billion when Google bought the site back in 2006. At the time many thought they were mad, but the phenomenal growth and the amount of user data that it provides to Google has proved the doubters very wrong.

So what can startups and marketers learn from YouTube and the growth of video more generally? To mark ten years of YouTube, here are ten lessons I’ve drawn from its success:

1. Don’t always follow the rules
One of the big issues with startups in new markets is that existing legislation doesn’t cater for their disruptive power. Think of Uber and Airbnb and the regulatory issues they are having as they look to sidestep rules governing taxis and accommodation respectively. With YouTube and other video sites that launched at a similar time the big issue was users uploading copyrighted material. Competitors protected themselves by checking content before it was uploaded – slowing down their growth and adding to their overheads. In comparison YouTube let users upload anything and then took it down if lawyers or rights holders complained. This gave it a key differentiator, attracted more users and reduced its costs.

2. It is all about You
Despite the growth of brands on the site, the vast majority of content on YouTube is still created by amateurs. By giving a platform for everyone to easily share video, YouTube has been part of a democratisation of the web – as shown by the viral success of many of its videos, and the helping hand it has given to the careers of artists and bloggers such as Psy, Ed Sheeran, Zoella and many others. Brands trying to connect with audiences on YouTube need to understand that it is a two-way street – it isn’t just about providing your own content, but encouraging consumers to work with you and share what they are doing if you want to increase engagement.

3. Video is worth 10,000 words

It may have taken a few years for broadband and mobile data speeds to be able to comfortably cope with streaming video, but now it is the medium of choice for many. If a picture is worth a 1,000 words, video is at least 10x as effective as it allows people to see what is happening, rather than relying on words or static images.

4. It isn’t just cute cats
A few years ago I did some market research with C-level executives to find out where they got information from. The big surprise was that YouTube featured highly in their responses. But a quick look at some of the business content on the site – from the Harvard Business Review to TED talks and The Economist – shows that there’s plenty for any audience to learn from YouTube, whatever demographic they are part of.

5. It can be monetised
People do make money from YouTube. Aside from the celebrities and stars that have used the channel to launch themselves, owners of popular channels are able to make money from the ads around their content. The targeted audiences YouTube delivers (thanks to Google’s knowledge of viewer’s demographics), make it an important way for marketers to reach the right people quickly and easily.

6. Media has become multimedia
Ten years ago there was a sharp divide between traditional print media and the broadcast world. The combination of YouTube and cheaper, higher quality video cameras (or even just smartphones), mean that any journalist or publication can create and upload multimedia content quickly and easily. From interviews to reports, people now expect to see embedded video on news sites, with most media outlets now having their own YouTube channel to host and share content.

7. YouTube is the back end, not just the front end
For every video accessed directly on the site, many hundreds more are reached through other sites. Essentially YouTube provides a complete infrastructure for brands to set up their own channels, for free, and then embed links in their own site or other media. Again, it makes it easy for companies to share video, on or off the site.

8. Attention spans are shorter
People, particularly on mobile devices, are increasingly browsing video content, rather than settling down to watch it for a long time. While there are plenty of exceptions – my children would watch 10-15 minute videos of Stampylongnose playing Minecraft all day – most people don’t want to watch long form content on YouTube. So videos need to be short, snappy and broken up into bite size chunks if they are to be watched and shared.

9. Showing is easier than telling
Doing a DIY job used to involve poring through a manual or asking friends and family for advice. Now you simply go onto YouTube and watch a professional doing it, explaining as they go. The same applies to lots of jobs and hobbies, and with YouTube results prominently displayed in Google searches, it has never been easier to work out how to do something for the first time.

10. Innovation is constant
YouTube may be ten, but it still faces challenges. Facebook is looking to compete by making it simple for its users to share videos on the network, while streaming music services are waking up to the amount of music content watched on the site. Recently Snapchat announced that it has 100 million users watching 2 billion mobile videos every day. The shift to mobile and the fact that as video grows up it becomes more of a commodity means that YouTube needs to constantly evolve if it is to remain relevant.

Ten years is a long time in tech and social media, and the growth of YouTube shows how it has managed to build a brand by understanding what people want and giving them a platform to share. It will be interesting to see what the next decade brings – hopefully not another Justin Bieber………….

May 27, 2015 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media, Startup | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The future of advertising – no ads at all

Aggressive marketing campaigns are common, thi...

Think about it – what was the last advert you saw that you really remember or which made you take action? The likelihood is that nothing comes immediately to mind. This is ironic as we are now surrounded by more and more ads, whether on the internet, TV or billboards. And they should be increasingly better targeted given that advertisers can see our browsing history, previous searches and even what we Like on Facebook.

Why don’t we remember ads? I think there are three reasons. Firstly, we’re getting better at blanking them out ourselves. Our brains are struggling to cope with the huge amount of information around us, and are therefore becoming more ruthless and ignoring things that aren’t relevant.

Secondly, as well as giving us greater opportunities to see ads, technology is also helping us to skip them. Most of us fast forward through the ads on recorded programmes, and given that more TV is no longer watched live (or on a TV), we can save time by avoiding commercial breaks. Even if you begin watching a recording of a programme on ITV 15 minutes after it starts, you’ll catch up by the end, without missing anything but the ads. Websites are also waking up to the idea that you can offer a premium, ad free product to increase revenues. YouTube is looking at subscription model that means you don’t have to see any ads on the site, for example.

Finally, most ads aren’t actually that interesting anymore. Big budget TV ads still exist, but the vast majority are much more basic and programmatic – you do a search for a toaster, and small, mostly text-based ads then follow your round the internet for a week, appearing on every page you visit for example. The creativity is more in the algorithm that understands your intent, finds a corresponding ad and then keeps tracking you from site to site. It would be physically impossible for the advertiser to create hundreds of creative ads telling you about how their toaster will change your life – there simply isn’t the time or space to do it.

I’m sure there are wonderful long form TV ads out there, but apart from the Christmas campaigns (which have become part of the festive experience) I’m not watching them, and I don’t know who else is either. There don’t appear to be ads that tell your friends about, like the Tango, Guinness or Levis campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s. Too many TV or billboard ads are generic or ‘good enough’ in the eyes of the client, rather than pushing the boundaries. Targeting is replacing creativity as the key factor in success, so what does this mean for the advertising industry?

It could mean the end of ads as we know it. Brands are looking for different ways to engage with customers, so are putting their money into sponsorship of programmes, sports and events, content marketing and campaigns on social media. However swapping the TV ads you’ve always done for a Facebook or YouTube-based programme requires a leap of faith from marketing directors and ad planners alike. At the moment many have added the internet to their campaigns, for example sharing their ads on their own site, Facebook and YouTube and using cut down versions for internet advertising.

However I think that there’s going to be a moment when the advertising industry becomes ‘digital first’ and the swashbuckling creatives and Don Drapers will be replaced by data scientists and content marketers who can use technology to understand and reach audiences, as opposed to untargeted TV ads that may win prizes for creativity but don’t deliver ROI. In many ways this will be a shame, but shows that whatever industry you are in, digital can and will disrupt everything you do.

April 15, 2015 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, Social Media | , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 62 other followers